Of Wizard Chess and Dueling
by Mercurial Weather
Summary: Of Wizard Chess and Dueling: The Ritualization of Violence and Sacrifice. In a world in which one magical foot soldier has the potential of destruction of a light tank or a bomber, one on one combat is a way to limit the loses of an all out war. And when you approach a duel as a game of chess, be ready to make sacrifices, even your life, in order to win.


Of Wizard Chess and Dueling: The Ritualization of Violence and Sacrifice

"_Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy." Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934)_

I love the relationship of Harry Potter and chess, even if in canon the relationship is lax. In general I try to follow the rules, which typically means that I adhere to canon. That is, in part, why I have decided to move my lengthy ranting to independent "stories." My author notes were taking up whole chapters within my fic, which is expressly forbidden by the rules of the site.

I do realize that the fact that the genre of essay is absent in the options present in the story data base probably means that this rant is, indeed, entirely outside the scope of fanfiction net. But, in the absence of the express prohibition of publishing essays pertaining to fandoms, I thought: what the…? I'm hoping they will all be under-rug-swept.

I used to have working dialogues with my husband, my former beta, but he has decided to give his doctoral thesis another go; so he is quitting the world of fanfic, temporarily I hope. Apparently our beta relationship goes far beyond the scope of what 'normal' beta relationships are. We were not co-writing, he only does original stories but his was an active collaboration. I thought about finding a replacement, but I've abandoned the idea when I realized the hubby is irreplaceable. In the absence of our dialogue I need these monologues to keep my ideas straight. If someone does read these rants and finds them objectionable, please don't take offense, none is intended. I would appreciate if these weren't flagged.

There I go. Bad Merc! Old habits die hard, I spent a very good portion of my life living like a renegade. A Bishop who has tasted the freedom of the board is hard to hold back. Bishops know how to stay true traveling far on crooked lines. I like Bishops, Two Bishops is my go-to endgame. If you manage to get there facing a lone King, your opponent's only hope is that you screw up badly so there is either a stalemate or, if they are gutsy enough to keep their gloves up for 50 moves or more; so the draw after 50 moves rule kicks in. It's your fault really if you are unable to checkmate. I have also been known to favor Bishop Pair in my opening positions. When those who tread the path of light and dark walk hand in hand they can be unstoppable. I like it not only for the tactical advantage it affords, but because it offers the possibility of beautiful games. I am an aesthetician. If a thing can be useful and beautiful, then it gains in my regard. Beauty is good, good is beauty.

I have a long standing affair with chess, especially the archeological search for old games, greatly facilitated nowadays by Internet. I'm also very partial to all things Victorian; it is not hard to figure out why I'm obsessed with Lasker, Steinitz, Tarrasch and Capablanca, -who wasn't a great player of the 19th but of the early 20th century. - The Roaring Twenties are another period of history I like. The fact that the Fantastic Beast franchise (FB going forward) is set in that time period has given me great joy.

See, I beat around the bushes. That is why I need my rants to keep me focused. Eyes on the ball, Merc. My partiality to the 19th and early 20th centuries has a lot to do with the glamor and elegance that they had. The influence of the Victorian Era aesthetic on Harry Potter is something that one day I will rant about. All I will say now is that I think the Victorian Era, The Roaring Twenties and The Harry Potter World have an old fashioned –I'm tempted to say pagan- regard for beauty. You know what I mean, don't you? How could I help but be enamored of times in which the beauty of form compliments the functionality of things as opposed to being perceived as Hegelian dichotomies?

Let me try to explain what I mean with an example: An eggshell porcelain tea cup can be both gorgeously crafted and utilitarian, in fact, being aesthetically pleasing can be considered an integral part of its functionality. Beauty is one of its _raisons d'être_. The idea of considering the pleasure that can be derived from an object or experience as a priority, greatly appeals to the little Epicurean in me.

I am the sort of person that chooses the keyboard of her computer by passing my fingers over the prospective keyboards until I find the one which feels right. If I'm going to spend a great deal of time using something, its use must be a pleasant experience. Life presents us with enough unpleasantness to purposefully seek it. We have an obligation to search that which can make us happy. That is why I chose to quote Tarrasch on his feelings about chess to open this rant, granted, the game of chess is not often related to happiness, the vast majority of people tend to see it at best as an activity completely foreign to them, when not as a game enjoyed by the supercilious few.

I cannot rightfully tell you how happy I was that J.K. chose the run of the mill guy: Ronald Bilius Weasley, as her chess champion to engage in singular combat with an opponent of Athenian stature like Minerva McGonagall (forgive the rather cheap play on the woman's name). The imagery of singular combat _à la __David_ and _Goliath_ is one that I always find heartbreaking beautiful. I can bet you that you weren't expecting Ron to play chess, let alone be able to hold his own against McGonagall. And he does it with blacks, atta boy. Regardless, the choice felt right, at least to me.

Chess is, after all, a game of Pawns. Beware of the Passed Pawn for they can be promoted. Yes, in the chessboard the lowliest of pieces only needs to survive through eight ranks (or seven books) to become whomever it wants to be: Knight, Rook, Bishop or even a Queen. And Pawns working together can checkmate a King… One of the checkmates I'm prouder of was precisely with three Pawns, I played whites. Of course the Pawn checkmate is rare enough to be something that stands out. I've played a fair amount of times and I've only achieved it once.

Chess is also a game for revolutionaries and egalitarians. The tale of the underdog who wins against the odds is one of my favorite on board plots. One could argue it is one of the main motifs in Harry Potter too. Since this is not intended to be an actual dissertation, I'll leave it there. I'll just say that Ronald becoming a knight to face his moment of truth is particularly poetic; and that poetry has an encore towards the end when he saves Harry using Gryffindor's sword. I know that under promotion (choosing to promote your Pawn to anything other than a Queen) is frowned upon by textbook players, but I've never been a textbook player, so I'm pleased by the choice.

Let's profit from the mention of singular combat to address the matter of dueling and its relationship to chess. First, on dueling. I am aware that in modern societies the idea of taking a discussion outside, exchanging blows instead of words, makes most of us cringe. Physical confrontation to those of us privileged enough to live outside the conflict zones of the planet feels crass and it risks ending with someone badly hurt. Well-bred people, which I assume us all to be, are taught to favor more civilized ways of resolving conflict. That is why the idea that dueling was not conceive to promote violence but, on the contrary, as a way of limiting it, may sound odd to us. But it is the truth, dueling is the heir of singular combat and trial by combat, which may seem like barbaric practices of antiquity and the Middle Ages; but were meant to limit the amount of deaths. If you only had two champions killing each other to resolve a conflict, you were spared the losses of war and blood feuds.

Even then dueling was a last resort and part of its very formal etiquette had the purpose of opening avenues of reconciliation without loss of honor to either party. The rigidity of the _Code Duello_ involved in an affair of honor was there to guarantee that there was always a chance of avoiding the actual fight and that, in case of a fight, death did not happen. On principle the intention was to seek an apology or to stop after drawing first blood. Dueling was an agonistic practice, like gorillas pounding their chests, the main objective was to show one of the opponent's superiority so the loser could walk away shamelessly. Of course the essential part was maintaining the honor of all those involved. At times that meant killing. Duels always involved that risk, so they were not to be undertaken lightly. But they had the advantage of immediate redress and satisfaction to both parties. The field of honor was an unappealable court. I won't discuss the fairness of that court, 'cause I'm lazy that way sometimes.

I don't want to go too deep on the topic of honor and its ties to the concept of manliness either. Let me just say that Adam Smith (yes the economist who wrote _The Wealth of Nations_) thought that a man incapable either of defending or revenging himself was wanting in essential parts of the character of a true man. Disclaimer: my idea of manliness is more fluid. And I don't necessarily think that defending or revenging your honor has to be done with a sword, a pistol or a wand.

What I do think is that, given the nature of magical power, it makes perfect sense that violence has been ritualized with wizard dueling too. Imagine a war in which each foot soldier has the destructive potential of a lightweight tank or a bomber plane… Singular combat becomes a very good option to avoid the destruction of the world as we know it. That is why two Kings can engage in conflict like Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald instead of sending armies against each other. As opposed to Charles V and Francis I who only menaced to duel each other over Italy. Muggle Kings talk the talk, Wizard Kings walk the walk. Wizard Kings in the Harry Potter world face each other instead of going _Two Towers_… Ooh, I can't barely wait to write all about The Duel, but I like to stick to my game plan...

If you are truly interested on learning about real life dueling, I will recommend you two books: one is fiction by Joseph Conrad called _The Duel,_ it is not his finest but it helps you get the mood and the lingo of the gentlemanly duel right. There is also Cannes awarded Ridley Scott 1977 movie based on it called _The Duellist_; which is very nice too. The other book is really great non fiction: Barbara Holland's_ Gentlemen's Blood: A History of Dueling_ both are available in Kindle. OK, I'm very tempted to address blood and Harry Potter because I think that is also a fascinating topic… But I leave it for the rant on blood oaths.

Now, how does this relates to chess? Well, chess is also a form of ritualized violence. Aside from its aesthetic one of the things that I love the most about old fashioned chess is that it was approached as a duel -an affair of honor.- For example: Did you know that the players had seconds?

If you are not as obsessed with the age of enlighten savagery as I am, you might not know the function of seconds in a duel. Allow me to rant a bit about it: seconds were there for several reasons one of the foremost was to solicit and promote an apology as a peaceful resolution. Seconds were also in charge of the logistic, finding the right place, securing the services of a surgeon, etc. They were the levelheaded companions of the offended principals in charge of trying to prevent bloodshed and, in case it was unavoidable, in charge of overseeing said bloodshed was carried out honorably. In some extreme cases, if honorability was breached, the second had the right to shoot the offender like a dog. They could also act as stand-ins in case one of the principals was incapacitated before reaching appropriate satisfaction. In chess, with the obvious caveats, seconds had almost the same functions.

Back then violence was the iron fist hidden underneath the silk glove. It could also be argued that the Harry Potter books have lots of hidden violence. Like good old fashioned fairytales you have children risking their lives merrily. The premise that the underage hero needs to be sacrificed to vanquish the villain is enough to induce nightmares in the fainthearted. But a lot of the violence passes undetected because it is subtle. I think the violence is at least partially responsible for the series success. A part of us enjoys bloody conflict, especially if we can engage in it from safety. Just like a part of us enjoys being scared. Playing Chess, playing any zero-sum game, allows us to experience combat from a relatively safe position.

OK there is also actual chess in Harry Potter and I think it is high time we speak of it. Let us dive right in it: The first appearance of Wizard Chess happens in the very first book. I was already twenty when it came out. And I must confess that I started reading Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone to my niece -whom I consider my spiritual daughter- with the rather sneaky agenda of that being the entry gate for getting her hooked on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.

I was in the height of my cynic years, freshly out of my personal Calvary; which I had only just managed to survive. As if being in the spectrum weren't enough to create a divide between me and my peers, what I was seeking in college was a monastic retreat where I could lick my wounds before going back to the fight. On the contrary, most of my coeds were there to begin experimenting life like adults. Disillusionment was my middle name, I wasn't expecting much out of college. I admit that I also wasn't expecting much out of the books and was pleasantly surprised by how well written they were. Both the Harry Potter books and finishing my degree were part of my recovery.

However, when I first found out about Wizard Chess, I was intrigued but not blown away by it. The concept of self-moving chessmen was not new to me, I had already read about it in a soviet novel. I fancied myself a communist quasi-revolutionary during part of my youth. I went to pilgrimage to the house where Trotsky was killed. I even thought about naming my firstborn Lenin. I felt utterly betrayed by Stalin and the lot of them, I slept with Orwell's _1984_ and _Animal Farm_ under my pillow and celebrated when the Berlin wall fell (I was 12); not because communism was over, but because now we could finally do it right. Having a novel of an actual critic of the regime made me felt incredibly daring. If I could have found a _samizdat_ copy of that book, I would have died happily.

I'm center leaning towards left-wing nowadays. But back then I was the proud owner of a copy of Bulgakov's _The Master and Margarita_. I guess you can describe it as a Faust fanfic AU set in the Soviet Union. It even quotes Goethe at the very beginning: _'Say, at last- who art thou?' 'That Power I serve which wills forever evil yet does forever good.' _ How I loved that book! I would have danced naked in Satan's Spring Dance, if they had let me. Which I think they might have done because not even at my worst did I lose my faith in humanity. I've been known to focus on somewhat lesser characters of books and, at the time, I used the same pseudonym as The Poet: _Bezdomny_ (homeless). I even named my sister's huge tabby cat _Behemoth_ in honor of the Satan's own cat –in as much as cats can be owned by anyone, even the devil himself.- The book is available for free in the web, if you care to give it a butchers. Disclaimer: I am a child of bohemian, I learnt/ learned bits of my English literally everywhere, I know I'm all over the place. Promise to try to stick to American…

Anyways, Wizard Chess was intriguing enough to warrant a second look. I admit I was a bit put off by the lack of detail of the actual game between McGonagall and Ron Weasly. I would have loved to see it move by move. So, I was thrilled to find out that International Master Jeremy Silman had participated in creating the endgame of the Sorcerer's Stone movie… OK, the movie was again a bit disappointing in the sense that the actual moves are not visible. I cannot tell you how many hours of sleep I lost doing guesswork to figure it out. I tried to devise scenarios in keeping with the little information we did know from canon.

We know Hermione is a Rook, but we don't know if she is kingside or queenside. We know Ron is a Knight who sacrifices to allow the Bishop Harry to check mate. We also know the other Knight is taken and that there are several unnamed material losses during the game. We also know the White Queen was there at the endgame because she stares at Ron and presumably takes him. OK, first let me tell you that J.K. created one heck of a chess problem because given the way those pieces move checking with a Knight and Bishop is a nightmare that requires forcing the checkmate with a long endgame: 30 moves at the very least and that is uncomfortably close to 50 which means an automatic draw. Blacks Knight and Bishop vs. White Queen ends 99 percent of the time with Whites victorious. If there are no Pawns the sole form of forcing a checkmate is creating a Karstedt fortress in which neither Bishop nor Knight can be sacrificed because the whole strategy depends on the two of them watching each other backs.

Ron's sacrifice works beautifully from the story point of view but it is really screwed up from the game point of view. Now we know the Bishop and Knight are not alone, Hermione (The Rook) is right there, which gives us a little leeway and creates another big problem as in that case in most scenarios my first instinct would be to do away with the Bishop and seek a Knight and Rook checkmate which is actually a Chess 101 checkmate. But the Bishop is Harry! So that is a big no, no… What is one to do?

Fortunately the internet is nowadays a vast repository of stuff that can spare you my troubles. There is an essay by the man himself. IM Jeremy Silman can walk you through the wonderful solution he came up with. What are you waiting for? It is in The Leaky Cauldron. With the villainous White Queen (McGonagall) trying to kill the Black Bishop (Harry) and the Black Knight (Ron) trying to thwart her, it makes for a thrilling read. I really like Ron when he acts the brave knight. And in Mr. Silman endgame Hermione is also kept very safe, which could be taken as a telltale sign of Ron's feelings for her.

It all fits so nicely. Ron's sacrifice takes an even deeper dimension because in Mr. Silman's endgame he could have easily sacrificed Harry to force a quicker checkmate, but he doesn't. Ron Weasley, the master tactician, is thinking of the bigger picture. I see the game overlapping with the book and it all makes perfect sense. That little pause, Ron softly speaking mostly to himself and the realization he has to be taken in order for Harry to be able to pursue the quest is so goddam beautiful that I cannot understand why it didn't make it into the movie. No, I do understand, movie dynamics demand sacrifices. It is such a pity this game didn't survive. I wish there had been a hardcore chess fan who had said: _Ron Weasley story is completely different without the nuances of this crucial game and his sacrifice, it defines the role he will have for rest of the story. We must have it!_

Now we come to another big motif of the Harry Potter Saga: Sacrifice. From the sacrifice of Lily and James Potter, to the first on story sacrifice of Ron in the chessboard. Going through the sacrifice of half or more of the Order of the Phoenix, or the sacrifice of Dumbledore, or the sacrifice of Snape who actually devoted his life to protecting the child of the man he hated because it was also the child of the woman he loved. Or the noble sacrifice of Dobby. Even of some of the bad guys' sacrifices are worth mention: Wormtail giving up his hand, Narcissa Malfoy giving up her praised station in life and her safety for her son. Right onto the ultimate sacrifice of Harry, the series confronts us time and time again with the characters renouncing to something that seemed most precious to them in the altar of achieving a greater objective.

In chess, sacrifices are the bread and butter of the game, there are lesser sacrifices that give you opening of kingside space, they create opportunities like gambits; however there are bigger sacrifices some highly suspicious to the opponent for they seem to leave you at a disadvantage when in reality they give you tactical advantage. But even if in the end the sacrifice signifies a gain, there is always a risk in playing with a handicap. It may very well spell your doom or the opponent may just choose to ignore your offering. That is the beauty of it.

Of course, in the game of chess the King is the single piece that cannot be offered in sacrifice, for it would mean game over. In stories and even in life, however, the King sacrifice creates powerful imagery and is present in a lot of myths. That is what makes the scene of Harry walking out of the forest after parleying with the death to offer his life to Lord Voldemort into something so momentous. Can you imagine Voldemort's face when he realized he hadn't been able to kill Harry yet again? And this time around it is his own selfless sacrifice that protects him! There are rules in fairytales and confronting and accepting your fate bravely and calmly has its rewards. Again, I'll address the mystical significance of keeping to the letter of an oath, even an implicit oath, when I discuss the nuances of blood oaths in another rant.

At one point I entertained the notion of translating the novels into actual chess games, assigning chessmen to key characters and going through the moves in a way that captured the spirit of the story. I must admit that I abandoned the idea before even beginning because the task exceeded my ability as a player. I don't think I was ever skilled enough, but right now I'm hopeless.

Let me confess that nowadays I'm only a casual player of the game. My days of pursuing chess seriously are long gone. I'm not even sure I could have ever called myself a serious player. Not because I wasn't invested in the game, but because I was the kind of player most people wouldn't take seriously. You have to admit that a short busty girl dressed in all black, with tons of eyeliner, green bangs and a nose piercing is not the archetypical chess player. Who am I kidding? I had the kind of looks and badass attitude that invite people to change sidewalks, not to play chess in the park.

When I was a teenager personalized t-shirts became a thing, one of mine was black, with a white downward pointing arrow, a white rightward pointing arrow and the word stupid written with a mock Superman S. I used to wear it when I played. I considered that t-shirt psychological warfare. OK, I might have thought it elegantly ironic too…What can I say? I was an adolescent, I lacked a lot of things by definition; among many others I hadn't really developed good taste. I like to think I had the right notions on beauty, but real good form is only acquired through experience.

Regardless, some things stick with you throughout all your life, my penchant for bold moves hasn't changed. I like to feel the thrill even if I risk being beaten badly by someone who plays it safe. I play for the rush and at times the enthusiasm pays off. Especially when I manage to find an opponent who shares my love for the game for the game itself more than being keen on winning.

OK, make no mistake, chess is a competitive zero-sum game, winning is a big part of it. But making a game all about the win can end up being rather boring. A good game, a really good game requires a certain amount of complicity among the players. Making a bold or unexpected move that is not necessarily the best can be akin to flirting. It is a wink that says, play me, and let us make a beautiful game. That's how I like to play my chess. And, sometimes… I win. I won't say what my Elo ranking was back when I played more seriously, though. A little mystery is always good for a lady.

It should be no surprised that when I decided to write an Albus and Gellert fanfic, since I see their relationship as a Grandmaster duel, I decided to incorporate chess as a big part of it. And I also want to capture some of the more mature aesthetic of the later films. OK, before going onward, I know the FB movies are somewhat controversial. What can I say? I like them.

Apparently, I'm one of the few not bothered by having movies which are basically showcases for characters, places and situations in the Wizarding World. My husband -who can at times be a harsh critic- has dubbed them: halfhearted onanistic fan service pastiche… Ouch…He says: _"If you are going to go that way, go all the way and make honest to god erotica. Rating notwithstanding, they are not making a film meant for children, they murder a baby on screen a few minutes into the movie."_ (I have to disagree, Professor, it was very obvious what was going to happen, but the murder didn't technically happen on screen).

When I point out that the Wizarding World has Victorian morals. The hubby points out that we are in the 21st century and that erotica with guys who look as good as the actors portraying Albus, Gellert, Newt and Credence is sure to be a blockbuster hit and that never hurt anyone. The hubby and I are solid threes in Kinsey's scale. He is genuinely surprised that in this day and age Mamma pajama seeing you, me and Julio down by the schoolyardstill makes the cover of Newsweek. That is a reference to a somewhat obscure Paul Simon song, the hubby is a fan.

He says: _"Something is very wrong with the world if you can get away with showing a baby being killed, but god forbids you show two guys kissing and petting each other."_ I have to agree with him on that one, but I'm not surprised at all. OK, I was educated in far more restricted environments than my hippie better half.

As I said, we are an odd couple, I'm a 5 feet 4 inches Goth brunette slightly inclined to embonpoint as J.M. Barrie would say. Just like _Tinkerbell_ I can be kind of a bitch sometimes. And, underneath his roughed exterior – think along the lines of a slimmer, somewhat shorter Hagrid- the hubby is actually a very sweet guy. He is a Slytherin physicist outdoorsman who enjoys solving number puzzles as much as climbing volcanoes (yeah, he has been up 60 of those; 3 of them 6,600 feet above sea level). He keeps his hair and his beard shorter than Hagrid's, for the University he teaches in has a stricter dress code than Hogwarts. He wears tweed jackets but still teaches with jeans on, you can't take the hippie completely out of the guy.

The hubby likes Harry Potter too, I managed to convince him to do the Pottermore test and now he owns the coolest ever Elephant Patronus that made me a little bit jealous because he has always had an affinity to elephants. He goes by Loxodonta Americana in his webscapades and he even got a mention for landing an unusual Patronus. It's alright, I've made my peace with it. My Mastiff Patronus is not my favorite animal, but a loyal, fierce guardian really suits me.

Unlike the hubby I liked the FB movies. Onanistic fan service can be nice too and the movies are PG-13 which is intended for young viewers; so I do understand the author reticence to go fully into erotica. Besides, the films are cinematographically gorgeous. I feel my movie ticket to FB 2 was well spent just by watching the fabulous wardrobe, the locations (especially the dark carnival which I fully intend to appropriate for my fic), the truly fantastic beasts, the underwater veil dance and the fire circle scene, shades of green and blue being my favorite colors. Those visuals are burnt in my retina. As for the challenges of intertextuality when moving through such different mediums as novel and cinematic script… I don't really want to open that can of worms.

Back to the chess in my fic and the chess game implicit in the FB movies, for example: King's Gambit and Falkbeer Counter Gambit. Let's start by explain a King's Gambit: It is an opening that was popular back in the 19th century and has fallen in disuse and some controversy. It involves the player sacrificing a Pawn to set a trap for the other player, hoping to elicit a reaction that will leave their King open for attack.

The reason why a King's Gambit breeds controversy is that it leaves the own player's King open to be attacked. With two equally skillful players the thing usually ends in a draw. Falkbeer's Counter Gambit being the usual defense. I've seen Grindelwald use the King's Gambit before… or after… Time-Traveling can be confusing. Anyways, have you seen the latest movie? If not, this may be a spoiler: Am I the only one who thinks that during his speech in Paris Grindelwald just executed the most perfect King's Gambit to open his war on the Wizarding World? OK, he didn't get the King, but he did capture two Queens and a Bishop. And yeah, with Pawn promotion you can have two Queens on board. He did away with two of them on the opening, people, for the price of a Pawn! And the stunt with the Bishop changing colors, as out of left field as the move seems from a purely storytelling p.o.v. was cool too.

OK, in actual chess pieces don't change color and opening gambits are done with Whites because Whites always move first. But there is a tradition of making the heroes use Blacks in Harry Potter. Regardless of colors, the move was impressive. Don't get me wrong, I never applaud the bad guys… But I admit, in this case, I had to refrain myself not to. It was beautifully executed. Gellert Grindewald is a gifted player, for a MF mass murderer. The niffler stealing the blood oath stunt was a very good Falkbeer's defense and Karma 101 for the poor chupacabra… One does not repay unconditional love like Antonio's in such way. Shame on you, Gellert! So we'll call it a draw.

Opening with a gambit is a declaration of principles. It means you are not afraid to make sacrifices if you win in the end. It can also be a wink, deathly flirtation is still flirtation. In real life adversarial liaisons are something smart people run away from, they are the worst of toxic codependent relationships and you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy to be caught up in one of them.

Mind you, I do understand the appeal of a somewhat adversarial relationship, at least in the early stages of it. My husband and I found each other, through a friend, when we were looking for online chess partners. He is old fashioned and prefers interacting with human beings. Of usual, I like computers better, but I love playing with him. Another reason to be fond of chess… We wouldn't have met otherwise. The hubby is a Slytherin with an aspen whippy wand 13 1/2'' with dragon heartstring core. He is flexible enough to marry an offbeat Ravenclaw economist almost shut-in with a beech wood 10 3/4''wand of unbending flexibility and unicorn hair core. The silver spear he has for a tongue does not only serve him to whip people around; but to lovingly call me his silver girl. There is an interesting synergy in being able to challenge each other through our differences.

He is capable of making me do things I wouldn't have dreamed of doing. For example: Left to my own devices I spent my holidays lounging in comfy hotel rooms with air conditioning, room service and a couple of big fat books. Only leaving said rooms to vegetate on sandy beaches or in the hotel spa. The effing hippie can make me walk 4.7 miles on an awful rocky dirt road to have a sumptuous vegetarian picnic inside the crater of a dormant volcano called _Chichinautzin _near Mexico City. He can make me go inside a rundown building near the Jewish cemetery to watch an impromptu puppet show by some experimental theater group in Prague. I honestly thought I was going to break an ankle before reaching the goddam crater and that they were going to find what was left of our bodies floating in the Moldova river –_come right in trusting tourist, watch the pretty puppets while we harvest your organs._\- But both experiences turned out to be great. And if it weren't for the Professor poking me, I would never have done it.

The Professor (my pet name for the hubby) calls me The Sleuth which has some rather obvious Holmes-Moriarty undertones. When we first became a couple we used to sign our e-mail exchanges as The Sleuth's Professor and The Professor's Sleuth, which, come to think of it, has some Anaïs Nin-Henry Miller undertones too… We've been a couple for 11 years and I like to think I'm not an idiot. How did he manage to slip that one pass me?! O darning socks! OK, this rant is meant to be PG-13 … So shut up Merc… Let's just say I do understand the appeal, but in the long run, the pairings that really work are collaborative. Even though adversarial relationships are fun to watch from afar… or write about.

Let us go back to chess and wrap it up: I do tend to see games as stories and stories like games. For the chess for my Albus-Gellert fic, in the first chapters, I thinking of the game between Adolf Anderssen and Emil Schallopp in Berlin in 1864. Whites win with a King's Gambit against a rather textbook Falkbeer Counter Gambit by sacrificing two Pawns and a Queen to check mate with a double Bishop wham bam. I've told you, Two Bishops is my go-to end game.

OK, Blacks made some epic mistakes in that game… But I wanted Whites to win. I don't see Gellert and Albus as Kings yet back in 1899, plus they were playing on the same side, sort of: Bishops Pair always has someone walking the dark squares and another one walking the light squares. Nevertheless, the power of two crafty Bishops on the open road is a force to be reckoned with. We all know how the game ended, but I'm rooting for the guys. Sue me. There is this lovely YouTube channel in which nickname MatoJelic explains most of these marvelously sneaky games move by move.

If you care for my two cents on how the endgame of the FB movies may look, I think it is going to be like Lasker vs Tarrasch 1908 world championship, the first game in particular. Since Hollywood is more conservative, I'm making Whites good guys and Blacks bad guys. Whites open with a canonical Ruy López, pushing the Knight (Newt) on the road and offering a Bishop (Credence) as sacrifice. Whites Bishop sacrifice is taken (we think he is dead, turns out he is going to turn into Blacks Bishop). There is a Queen Exchange midway, no biggie really, it's just gravy to thicken the plot. Both Kings castle after losing some material (it's quite the massacre). By Endgame White King (Albus) has his kingside Knight (Newt) and Rook (Hogwarts) and Black King (Gellert) has his queenside Bishop (Credence) and Rook (Nurmengard). Blacks has queenside Pawns and Whites has an advantageous kingside Pawn and center position (refer to the picture in the rant for more clarity on that).

Despite Black's bravado Whites win. Siegbert Tarrasch had said that the only two words he would speak to Emanuel Lasker were going to be _Schach und Matt_: Check and Mate, he didn't get to say them, he ate them. No big surprise here. Still, I'm curious to watch how the game unfolds... For me it's all about how the game unfolds… But I'm a crazy Ravenclaw madly in love with a violently beautiful game that like love and music can make you incredibly happy, even when you end up torn up to tatters. Believe you me, in chess as in life, there are greater lessons to be learned in defeat than in victory.


End file.
